Klukewich v. Howenstine

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Klukewich v. Howenstine

508 So. 2d 471, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1379, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8534

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 1987

DocketNo. 87-259

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 471 (Klukewich v. Howenstine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Klukewich v. Howenstine, 508 So. 2d 471, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1379, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8534 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question presented by this appeal is whether long-arm jurisdiction can be exercised in connection with paternity and child support claims against an out-of-state putative father. The First District in Bell v. Tuffnell, 418 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 427 So.2d 736 (Fla.1983), concluded that such jurisdiction was possible. The Second District reached the opposite result in State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Wright, 489 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, No. 69,050 (Fla. Dec. 8, 1986).

These two cases are in direct conflict. We align ourselves with the well-reasoned opinion of the Second District in Wright and acknowledge direct conflict with the First District in Bell. There is no basis to conclude that consensual sex amounts to tortious activity. Accordingly, we hold that no tortious act has been committed which would confer jurisdiction under § 48.193(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1983), nor was there an allegation that the defendant ever resided in Florida which would confer jurisdiction under § 48.193(1)(e), Fla.Stat. [472]*472(1983). The order of the trial court dismissing the action is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The question presented by this appeal is whether long-arm jurisdiction can be exercised in connection with paternity and child support claims against an out-of-state putative father. The First District in Bell v. Tuffnell, 418 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 427 So.2d 736 (Fla.1983), concluded that such jurisdiction was possible. The Second District reached the opposite result in State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Wright, 489 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, No. 69,050 (Fla. Dec. 8, 1986).

These two cases are in direct conflict. We align ourselves with the well-reasoned opinion of the Second District in Wright and acknowledge direct conflict with the First District in Bell. There is no basis to conclude that consensual sex amounts to tortious activity. Accordingly, we hold that no tortious act has been committed which would confer jurisdiction under § 48.193(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1983), nor was there an allegation that the defendant ever resided in Florida which would confer jurisdiction under § 48.193(1)(e), Fla.Stat. [472]*472(1983). The order of the trial court dismissing the action is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 471, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1379, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klukewich-v-howenstine-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack